To give up work and become a SAHM?

[YouAreMySunshine9]

This is more of a 'what would you do' but I suppose I am posting here for trafficking Have name changed as the figures I give will out me.

First DC is due soonish and I'm thinking, after maternity leave, that I should give up my job because financially, it's not worth it and I want to SAH with DC as it'll have more benefits to it?

Myself and DH are both low earners. I earn just under £20K, he earns £21K.

We aren't entitled to anything with us both working, but, somehow top ups would make us better off if one of us didn't work?

I'm quite a poorly person, I have an autoimmunity disease so I have a feeling working just to pay childcare (if it even ends up covering that?) and missing out in DC's first for it will send me into despair.

My concern is... The whole career break thing. I would go back to work when DC is a few/3 years old but I'm not sure how it'd impact my job prospects. I work as a Medical Secretary in the NHS.

I would say work part time, but I'm not sure we'd get any help there either and it's a lot of huge effort just to fork out to pay for childcare.

What would you do?

I'm really worried

& I don't choose to pay taxes, I choose to work, as a natural consequence of which I pay taxes. I can then make a contribution towards the education my child receives, the services my severely disabled nephew receives, the pensions our elderly parents receive etc.

The great thing is that you don't need to do anything yet.
Take your 12 months maternity leave and see how you feel. Looking after a baby/toddler is much more physically demanding than sitting at a desk all day.
After a year off work I was desperate for a bit of time to myself again (I know it seems crazy to consider work as 'me time')
You just don't know how you will feel in 12 months time. I would spend the first 6 moths getting used to motherhood and enjoying your baby. Don't think about work plans until the second 6 months.
Good luck!

If you're earning 20k a year, how much is your childcare going to be if it takes your whole salary? FT nursery costs for a baby here is £800 a month - that would leave a decent chunk over from a 20k salary, surely?

I don't believe I mentioned that it would be one parent for the entirety of the three years, why should that be necessary?

Under such a proposal parents need only take six months at a time out from their roles in order to care for their baby/toddler.

Anecdotally I expect that many men would jump at the chance, I'm unsure why you're so certain that the opposite would be true.
Lots of my contemporaries earn more than their partners by quite a large margin, as do I.

I would vote for any party who would raise taxes in order to effect such a policy.

Stikkerrocks I assume you realise that it's rude not to acknowledge the questions which I have posed to you?
If you don't wish to answer them then fine, just let me know, but please conduct yourself with a little more common decorum if you wish to continue conversing with me.

Thank you

So am I correct in assuming that you wouldn't in fact choose to pay taxes if indeed they were entirely voluntary?

Everyone who is capable of it should make a contribution to society and pay tax, which is why I have never voted Tory in my life. As my husband has no idea how much I earn and similarly I have no idea how much he earns, I don't feel the need to share my income with a nameless person on a website as It's of absolutely no relevance. You obviously resent having to work during your own child's early years and feel this disadvantaged them in some way. I don't.

All of my comments have simply been in response to your ludicrous suggestion that the state should fund parents to make the lifestyle choice to stay at home for 3 years.

Back to the OP. Either stick with your current role or look for something closer to home whilst you can. See if you can afford to live on your combined state & family income whilst you are on maternity leave. If not, you have no choice, so return to work.

Irrespective of OPs employment or indeed lack of such, she is not in a position to change fraud and abuse statistics now, is she?

It's not fraud, but it absolutely is abuse. Choosing to quit your job and stay home and take benefits instead is abusing the system all day long . Benefits should not be a lifestyle choice. No one should be quitting their job so they can claim more benefits and be a stay at home parent so you don't miss your babies firsts.

Being a stay at home parent is great if you can afford it.and you can provide for your only family. Chosing to have a child, stay at home, and have the state fund it is abusing the system.

That's not what benefits are for, it's not why i pay my taxes for and that money that is spent on all these people who chose to do that, would be better going to schools or the NHS.

I'm in this situation right now. No way would I give up work to live on benefits if I have the ability to work.

If it doesn't cover travel find a job that's closer to home? And possibly better money. Medical secretary isn't usually that low of a paid job?

Oh do I now?

In reality I have no desire not to work whilst my children are babies. I explained before that my partner would assume this role if it was at all financially viable, therefore I have no particular vested interest in wanting to facilitate parents to raise their young children and certainly I am not resentful of having to work full time.

I asked whether you were a net contributor specifically because of its relevance to the point that you were making regarding not wanting a 'chunk' of your earnings to support parents to raise their babies/toddlers.

I consider your point that your clients would be interested in taxation being voluntary very indicative as to your perceived morals and truthfully I'm not surprised that you decided not to answer me.

Bluntness you're a bit late;

I've already suggested a rise in taxation and detailed why it's important for babies to be raised by their parents, as did another poster who actually performed a scientific study which supported my supposition.

"If not, you have no choice, so return to work."

Actually she does have a choice. Tax credits. You just don't like it.

What do you do if childcare costs more than you earn and you don't have the skillls to get a higher paid job? working will cost the op money. Would you let your bills go unpaid and your children starve because according to the middle classes of mumsnet you should be ashamed to claim benefits?

The subtleties of language really are passing you by Miss.

Probably been said already, but OP, I would really wait until you're well into your maternity leave before making the decision. I had great ideas about being a SAHM or at least going down to 1 day a week or something (I'm in a job where quitting would not have been wise as it's difficult to get back in) but as it turned out, I hated being at home all day every day. It was absolutely not for me. I compromised and went back 3 days. My youngest is now 4.5 and I've just gone back to full time work. I do miss being part time sometimes but opportunities for the role I am in now do not come round very often so I had to go for it. Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

Similarly the virtue of altruism appears to be entirely outside of your grasp.

See if you can afford to live on your combined state & family income whilst you are on maternity leave. If not, you have no choice, so return to work.

Except she said they'd be worse off with her working than not.

They wouldn't be worse off though, there's no way childcare for one child costs £20k a year. The OP hasn't looked into vouchers etc as quite clearly never planned to go back to work.

There will likely be another excuse when the three years are up as to why she can't work, very few take out three years as a SAHP. Most never return or don't until the children leave home etc.

People should be able to opt out of working if they want to be the option should always be self funded. For every parent we pay to not work or do little we take money away from schools and hospitals and reduce the outcomes of said children. How can that benefit society?

Op I would never ever ask a Q such as this on MN its rabid .

Your not well, life is short - do as you feel, I do feel one poster in this morass did point out however being with small DC is hard physical work, your constantly lifting, shifting and running round after them.
Most friends I know who dont need to work per se but who do with small DC say its been a welcome break from the DC!

Let someone else chase and wrestle and manage and feed and do up shoes for a few hours .
That said its absolutely true - the early years are vital they form your dc character and they do fly by in a flash. Unless you have other issues going on or really struggle being at home with small dc, you are the along with close family the only person who cares 100% for your dc, no other care provider will. Thats plain common sense.
I have friends who worked as nannies they said they would never ever use a nanny themselves as DP miss out on so much and neither would they use nurserys.

How can that benefit society

Society is made up of humans? Humans who need to form close bonds with their care givers? Meaning the absolute best case scenario for all development is for a baby to be with its primary care giver. Therefore if you can provide that (- and - many women who adore, and love their dc and are still amazing parents find the early years too hard and return to work to ease the burden, or women just chose to work because they prefer it - all fine) BUT if you can provide that close bond then thats the best thing for the baby.

Therefore it will be the best thing for society, The hand that rocks the cradle????

Personally I find this culture of accepting child care from very early years is really sad for us as a society to move towards. Like America with appalling womens rights and family rights, children ripped from mothers at only 6 weeks to get back to work. And what good has it done that country?

We are going badly wrong here I feel and we have frightening numbers of depressed dc, dc who commit suicide..I think we need to turn from the state - a la soviet union and look back towards whats best for the family and then we will have the best nation in return.

I think we should as a nation be trying to model ourselves on countries with children centered policies, and who boast very high happiness ratings.

The money is surely earmarked? I'm sure any money not claimed would not automatically go to the nhs or schools. It could go anywhere, including mp expenses.

Out of interes,t does anyone object to maternity pay as well? That is a benefit, for sure, which bears the same entitlement as tax credits.

Maybe we should go back to the 80s where you had your baby and were back in the office the following week?

Tax credits are nothing new anyway. Theyve been around since mid 80s under the name of Family Credit. In fact, around longer than extended mat leave, which no one objects to. It just wasn't as heavily advertised but I do remember seeing an ad once on the tv

I've already suggested a rise in taxation and detailed why it's important for babies to be raised by their parents, as did another poster who actually performed a scientific study which supported my supposition

Are you being deliberately goady? You know full well you're still being raised by your parents even if you go to nursery. Are you trying to be offensive to every working parent who raised happy well adjusted kids. For what reason, does it give you some form of cheap thrill?

So all suicidle dc were in childcare not from families where one or both parents were unemployed? Where are the stats that say that?

Suggesting that a bond can't be build over maternity leave alone is absurd, most fathers get two weeks paternity and still manage.

I don't object to a reasonable amount of maternity pay gandalf. I had my child when you received 6 weeks at 90% pay, 12 weeks at around £40 p.w. nd nothing thereafter. I was in the fortunate position of being able to fund 4 1/2 months off without having to compromise on my standard of living, but some friends struggled to take the 6 months leave we were then entitled to, which was tough on them as they wanted to stay at home as long as possible.

Well, this is where the tax credit system can really help some

Personally I wouldn't want the state to fund me being a SAHM to be honest, if you can work you should be unless your partner's salary allows you to stay at home.